If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

What a mess. You have neither market nor patents nor whatsoever in NK. Everything is public property, Stallman's dream.

Uh no, in North Korea everything is controlled by the state. It's a totalitarian society. There's no such thing as "public property" in North Korea. The definition of "public property" is "belongs to the people". If property is controlled by the state, it by definition cannot be owned by the people.

Comment

Uh no, in North Korea everything is controlled by the state. It's a totalitarian society. There's no such thing as "public property" in North Korea. The definition of "public property" is "belongs to the people". If property is controlled by the state, it by definition cannot be owned by the people.

In economics "public goods and services" = state goods and services. So the argument still stands.

Second, you're asserting that intellectual property is a form of property. This forum isn't the best place for an IP debate, but if you want to convince people to see things your way, you shouldn't assume that they agree with contentious premises like that. Keep going like this, and all that's gonna happen is you and the people you're arguing against are just going to keep repeating the same shit back and forth, with both you and them thinking privately, "Can't help it if the idiots don't want to listen to reason."

you're asserting that intellectual property is a form of property. This forum isn't the best place for an IP debate, but if you want to convince people to see things your way, you shouldn't assume that they agree with contentious premises like that. Keep going like this, and all that's gonna happen is you and the people you're arguing against are just going to keep repeating the same shit back and forth, with both you and them thinking privately, "Can't help it if the idiots don't want to listen to reason."

Well, too bad that things accepted all around the world are contentious for moon inhabitants on this forum.

Comment

Standard economic theory doesn't apply to totalitarian states where the entire economy is controlled by the state. Our economics are all based on market-based models.

Also, what ^he said.

Thanks for supporting what I wrote, dee., which is why I feel particularly bad about what I'm about to write next, but I'm afraid you are wrong when you say that standard economic theory doesn't apply to totalitarian states. The theory behind standard economic theory is that it always applies, everywhere, all the time, regardless of whether the people in charge want to believe it or not.

Economics aims to describe the nature of the world we inhabit in impartial terms that facilitate objective decision making. Personally, I think that modern economics comes close, but doesn't quite hit the bull's-eye. But all that means is that we need to correct the errors in our modern economics, not that there are certain classes of state that are immune to economic theory.

Comment

Well, too bad that things accepted all around the world are contentious for moon inhabitants on this forum.

That's the problem with bubbles. IP abolitionists visit sites and forums that already support their view, and hence have a distorted view of the world. IP maximalists visit sites and forums that already support their view, and hence have a distorted view of the world. There are incredibly few centrists in the IP debates. So, go on thinking that everyone outside of here believes that IP is a form of natural property. You are not going to make progress until you acknowledge the existence and proliferation of counter-arguments, and attempt to meet them in the middle.

Well, actually, you are going to make progress, lots of progress, because your side has more lobby money to spend. That's not justice, or the triumph of logic, or whatever. It's just plain old brute force.

Comment

Thanks for supporting what I wrote, dee., which is why I feel particularly bad about what I'm about to write next, but I'm afraid you are wrong when you say that standard economic theory doesn't apply to totalitarian states. The theory behind standard economic theory is that it always applies, everywhere, all the time, regardless of whether the people in charge want to believe it or not.

Economics aims to describe the nature of the world we inhabit in impartial terms that facilitate objective decision making. Personally, I think that modern economics comes close, but doesn't quite hit the bull's-eye. But all that means is that we need to correct the errors in our modern economics, not that there are certain classes of state that are immune to economic theory.

Well, you might be right, I'm not really that intimate with modern economic theory. And don't feel bad, I'm not opposed to being corrected when I'm wrong about something. Maybe what I'm trying to say is that the economic models that govern current western economic system (ie. capitalism) are based on models of free-market economy. Some assert that any central regulation goes against free markets, but I don't think that is true - a total lack of regulation would not provide a free market, as it would simply allow whoever has the most capital to control the markets. Fair competition is, in my view, prerequisite for a truly free market.

How much the current markets are really "free" is debatable, though. I think what we need are better safeguards against corporate influence on policy. Currently corporations and their lobby groups can pretty much write policy as they want, and most politicians are simply acting as rubber stamps for them. We need to find more ways to incentivize politicians to cater to public interest.

But this is getting a bit off topic...

Comment

That's the problem with bubbles. IP abolitionists visit sites and forums that already support their view, and hence have a distorted view of the world. IP maximalists visit sites and forums that already support their view, and hence have a distorted view of the world. There are incredibly few centrists in the IP debates. So, go on thinking that everyone outside of here believes that IP is a form of natural property. You are not going to make progress until you acknowledge the existence and proliferation of counter-arguments, and attempt to meet them in the middle.

Well, actually, you are going to make progress, lots of progress, because your side has more lobby money to spend. That's not justice, or the triumph of logic, or whatever. It's just plain old brute force.

I agree otherwise, except the framing of the argument between "IP abolitionists" and "IP maximalists". The problem is, that "Intellectual property" in itself is a loaded term. When you start discussing issues in the terms of "intellectual property", you are already introducing bias to the conversation, by implicitly acknowledging the validity of the concept of "intellectual property".

Also, just for the record, I don't think being a centrist is automatically a virtue in every issue. Sometimes it's better to take a stance in one direction or another, even if that stance is considered "extreme" by most. A lot of world-changing ideas have been considered "extreme" when they were first introduced.